-
Luke Gruber authored
This caused an issue when `defined?` was in the `if` condition. Its instructions weren't appended to the instruction sequence even though it was compiled if a compile-time known logical short-circuit happened before the `defined?`. The catch table entry (`defined?` compilation produces a catch table entry) was still on the iseq even though the instructions weren't there. This caused faulty exception handling in the method. The solution is to no add the catch table entry for `defined?` after a compile-time known logical short circuit. This shouldn't touch much code, it's only for cases like the following, which can occur during debugging: if false && defined?(Some::CONSTANT) "more code..." end Fixes [Bug #20501]
Luke Gruber authoredThis caused an issue when `defined?` was in the `if` condition. Its instructions weren't appended to the instruction sequence even though it was compiled if a compile-time known logical short-circuit happened before the `defined?`. The catch table entry (`defined?` compilation produces a catch table entry) was still on the iseq even though the instructions weren't there. This caused faulty exception handling in the method. The solution is to no add the catch table entry for `defined?` after a compile-time known logical short circuit. This shouldn't touch much code, it's only for cases like the following, which can occur during debugging: if false && defined?(Some::CONSTANT) "more code..." end Fixes [Bug #20501]
Loading